White House joins solar surge, installs panels

Pres. Carter had installed panels in 1979, Pres. Reagan removed them in 1986.

On Thursday, a White House official confirmed to the Washington Post that President Barack Obama would finally make good on a 2010 promise to install solar panels on the First Family’s residence. The panels are being installed this week.

Once complete, it would make Obama the first president since President Jimmy Carter to go green. Carter's solar panels were installed in 1979, but President Ronald Reagan had them removed in 1986. It also makes the Obama family part of the rapidly expanding growth in solar energy across the United States.

According to new industry data from GTM Research, solar panels have fallen in price, and their installation and collective energy-generating capacity has consequently skyrocketed. Nearly two-thirds of the world's existing solar panels have been installed in the last 2.5 years.

“It took nearly four decades to install 50 gigawatts of [photovoltaic] capacity worldwide,” GreenTechSolar reported this week. “But in the last 2.5 years, the industry jumped from 50 gigawatts of [photovoltaic] capacity to just over 100 gigawatts. At the same time, global module prices have fallen 62 percent since January 2011. Even more amazingly, the solar industry is on track to install another 100 gigawatts worldwide by 2015—nearly doubling solar capacity in the next 2.5 years.”

The White House official, who requested anonymity from the Post as the installation is still underway, said that this project is “a part of an energy retrofit that will improve the overall energy efficiency of the building.” Three years ago, administration officials said there would be a competitive bidding process to buy “20 to 50” American-made solar panels.

Why? If they are installed, it seems more expensive to remove them than just ignore them...

Oh, but I guess I've gone and made the assumption that government decisions make sense. Silly me.

Maybe it was a bad install job? The house I bought once had solar panels on it, but they were removed when the bad install job had allowed water in (so I guess it was cheaper to remove than set them up properly). I found this out when I asked about the water damage the inspector found prior to my purchase.

Maybe Carter hired cut-rate contractors, who then went 3x over their bid on their cost-plus contract. Cus you know, government.

"By 1986, the Reagan administration had gutted the research and development budgets for renewable energy at the then-fledgling U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and eliminated tax breaks for the deployment of wind turbines and solar technologies—recommitting the nation to reliance on cheap but polluting fossil fuels, often from foreign suppliers. "The Department of Energy has a multibillion-dollar budget, in excess of $10 billion," Reagan said during an election debate with Carter, justifying his opposition to the latter's energy policies. "It hasn't produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal or anything else in the line of energy.""

Basically Reagan didn't believe in the technology and wanted to move back to known sources regardless of their eventual impact.

Why? If they are installed, it seems more expensive to remove them than just ignore them...

Oh, but I guess I've gone and made the assumption that government decisions make sense. Silly me.

I think it was part of his pledge to the coal and oil companies not to threaten their business model. He did it around the same time he gutted the DoE's renewable energy program, complaining that "It hasn't produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal".

Why? If they are installed, it seems more expensive to remove them than just ignore them...

Oh, but I guess I've gone and made the assumption that government decisions make sense. Silly me.

Haven't looked into the details, but if they were installed in the 70s then they were probably the heat-up-your-hot-water type of solar panels or very early photovoltaics. Either would be fairly expensive to maintain, especially at government contractor rates.

Edit: According to river-wind's link, they were the water-heating type.

Why? If they are installed, it seems more expensive to remove them than just ignore them...

Oh, but I guess I've gone and made the assumption that government decisions make sense. Silly me.

In the cases of both president Carter and Reagan it's about symbolism, Carter was trying to push for green energy almost 40 years ago where Reagan was pushing to keep on oil, and ignore green tech. Government decisions may not always make sense from a pure logic/science pov. But from a policy/symbolism view they can be clear as day.

I'd be curious to see if there will be any sort of report of the effectiveness of the solar system... [/honest]

... you know, for transparency. [/s]

We have considered installing solar at our house. It definitely looks good long-term, but the up-front costs are tough to justify; especially when the break-even point is longer than we would like to stay in the house.

We have considered installing solar at our house. It definitely looks good long-term, but the up-front costs are tough to justify; especially when the break-even point is longer than we would like to stay in the house.

Depending on where you live, you could look into a company that offers a PPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_purchase_agreement), which lets you buy the energy created by the Modules as it's being delivered. This tends to offer a rate that's cheaper than grid, and lets you take advantage of the technology without the high upfront cost. One company I know of is http://www.solarcity.com/.

I don't know how it works in the 'States, but in my part of Canuckistan the public utility simply gives you a credit for the power you pump back in to the grid, obviating the need for localized storage (batteries, fuel cells et al.) Basically you install the panels and get a rebate off your power bill every month.

I don't know how it works in the 'States, but in my part of Canuckistan the public utility simply gives you a credit for the power you pump back in to the grid, obviating the need for localized storage (batteries, fuel cells et al.) Basically you install the panels and get a rebate off your power bill every month.

It works similarly in many areas of the U.S. (like here in parts of Missouri)

Why? If they are installed, it seems more expensive to remove them than just ignore them...

Oh, but I guess I've gone and made the assumption that government decisions make sense. Silly me.

Maybe it was a bad install job? The house I bought once had solar panels on it, but they were removed when the bad install job had allowed water in (so I guess it was cheaper to remove than set them up properly). I found this out when I asked about the water damage the inspector found prior to my purchase.

Maybe Carter hired cut-rate contractors, who then went 3x over their bid on their cost-plus contract. Cus you know, government.

It wasn't a bad install job. Carter tried to push for Green Energy, but Reagan ran on a message of Coal and Oil, and totally cut the funding the DoE was getting. If it weren't for Reagan undoing all that Carter had in terms of energy, we'd probably have said goodbye to fossil fuels by now. I mean, I admit the Carter panels weren't amazing technology, but still, it was a sign of progress that Reagan did all he could to undo.

I don't know how it works in the 'States, but in my part of Canuckistan the public utility simply gives you a credit for the power you pump back in to the grid, obviating the need for localized storage (batteries, fuel cells et al.) Basically you install the panels and get a rebate off your power bill every month.

In the US, it depends on your municipal utility's rules. Some allow you to put power you don't use back into the grid and receive a credit on your bill, while others don't. I think there are also tax credits you can get for putting wind/solar on your home, even if your utility won't let you put excess back into the grid, but I forget how much they are or how long they last.

I priced Solar Panels just last year and they made no sense. They never would have even gotten close to paying for themselves. I get pretty much direct sunlight and I'm only a bit north of DC. I wanted them to work out. I would love to be more self sufficient, but I couldn't justify cost. Are these something different than what is currently on the market?

I priced Solar Panels just last year and they made no sense. They never would have even gotten close to paying for themselves. I get pretty much direct sunlight and I'm only a bit north of DC. I wanted them to work out. I would love to be more self sufficient, but I couldn't justify cost. Are these something different than what is currently on the market?

I'll post this here again.

You should look into a company that offers a Power Purchase Agreement, where they install the panels, but technically still own them, and sell you the energy they produce at a rate that's usually lower than power from the Grid. One company I know of off the top of my head is http://solarcity.com, but there are many others. The price of solar has dropped below $1/Watt in most places, and if you have an acceptable roof, will almost definitely be financially worth it, doubly so if you don't have to pay for the whole system up front.

I'd be curious to see if there will be any sort of report of the effectiveness of the solar system... [/honest]

... you know, for transparency. [/s]

We have considered installing solar at our house. It definitely looks good long-term, but the up-front costs are tough to justify; especially when the break-even point is longer than we would like to stay in the house.

I'd guess they improve the value of your house. But since house buyers are typically pretty irrational not by nearly as much value as they'll provide. So you should find someone selling a house you like who has already installed panels.

I priced Solar Panels just last year and they made no sense. They never would have even gotten close to paying for themselves. I get pretty much direct sunlight and I'm only a bit north of DC. I wanted them to work out. I would love to be more self sufficient, but I couldn't justify cost. Are these something different than what is currently on the market?

I'll post this here again.

You should look into a company that offers a Power Purchase Agreement, where they install the panels, but technically still own them, and sell you the energy they produce at a rate that's usually lower than power from the Grid. One company I know of off the top of my head is http://solarcity.com, but there are many others. The price of solar has dropped below $1/Watt in most places, and if you have an acceptable roof, will almost definitely be financially worth it, doubly so if you don't have to pay for the whole system up front.

I priced Solar Panels just last year and they made no sense. They never would have even gotten close to paying for themselves. I get pretty much direct sunlight and I'm only a bit north of DC. I wanted them to work out. I would love to be more self sufficient, but I couldn't justify cost. Are these something different than what is currently on the market?

I'll post this here again.

You should look into a company that offers a Power Purchase Agreement, where they install the panels, but technically still own them, and sell you the energy they produce at a rate that's usually lower than power from the Grid. One company I know of off the top of my head is http://solarcity.com, but there are many others. The price of solar has dropped below $1/Watt in most places, and if you have an acceptable roof, will almost definitely be financially worth it, doubly so if you don't have to pay for the whole system up front.

I priced Solar Panels just last year and they made no sense. They never would have even gotten close to paying for themselves. I get pretty much direct sunlight and I'm only a bit north of DC. I wanted them to work out. I would love to be more self sufficient, but I couldn't justify cost. Are these something different than what is currently on the market?

Pretty much. Solar panels for the homeowner are nothing more than a feel good tech. It makes the person feel good about "doing their part" to try and save the environment and all that. In reality it doesn't do a whole lot of good for you. You'd be better off getting your community to chip in and buying one of those mini nuclear power plants once they are available. Far more cost effective and makes you more power independent.

I totally disagree. Many homeowners are able to produce more energy than they need from a solar installation, and many installers now allow homeowners to have a solar system installed at no cost up front, and merely pay for the energy as it's produced. I for one also don't want to live anywhere near a nuclear reactor. I'd much rather have a PV system than a nuclear one.

You'd be better off getting your community to chip in and buying one of those mini nuclear power plants once they are available. Far more cost effective and makes you more power independent.

I would also suggest getting some Unicorns for your petting zoo. Those mini nuke plant plans have a lot of serious real world issues that are going to keep them out of the hands of consumers for a long long time. You can buy solar panels today, and the price is rapidly approaching the point where it actually makes sense in the long term (I think they're already profitable if you claim the tax credit, but only after 10 years or so).

I priced Solar Panels just last year and they made no sense. They never would have even gotten close to paying for themselves. I get pretty much direct sunlight and I'm only a bit north of DC. I wanted them to work out. I would love to be more self sufficient, but I couldn't justify cost. Are these something different than what is currently on the market?

Pretty much. Solar panels for the homeowner are nothing more than a feel good tech. It makes the person feel good about "doing their part" to try and save the environment and all that. In reality it doesn't do a whole lot of good for you. You'd be better off getting your community to chip in and buying one of those mini nuclear power plants once they are available. Far more cost effective and makes you more power independent.

Yeah, because everyone wants a nuclear reactor in their neighborhood.

If a solar panel installation has the worst possible malfunction, what happens? Your house catches on fire and the fire spreads to your neighborhood before it can be put out. Compare that to the worst possible malfunction of a neighborhood nuclear reactor.

I keep looking at solar, but they're just not worth it yet, assuming you have a reliable power grid.

I do have a pile of greentech ideas for when I build a house, though. Solar figures pretty heavily in that case, but really most as a backup power source for a few important things (a few lights, fans, maybe the fridge). Or wind; I don't look that much because it's not useful research right now.

I do keep thinking about a solar preheater and an inline water heater, though. That's an easy, low-cost install. I've also seen some neat solar air heaters; suck cold air from the floor, run through a solar-heated manifold, blow back out. Add a cheap solar fan with a smallish battery.

I priced Solar Panels just last year and they made no sense. They never would have even gotten close to paying for themselves. I get pretty much direct sunlight and I'm only a bit north of DC. I wanted them to work out. I would love to be more self sufficient, but I couldn't justify cost. Are these something different than what is currently on the market?

Pretty much. Solar panels for the homeowner are nothing more than a feel good tech. It makes the person feel good about "doing their part" to try and save the environment and all that. In reality it doesn't do a whole lot of good for you. You'd be better off getting your community to chip in and buying one of those mini nuclear power plants once they are available. Far more cost effective and makes you more power independent.

Yeah, because everyone wants a nuclear reactor in their neighborhood.

If a solar panel installation has the worst possible malfunction, what happens? Your house catches on fire and the fire spreads to your neighborhood before it can be put out. Compare that to the worst possible malfunction of a neighborhood nuclear reactor.

Do you even know anything about them? Based on your comment it seems you haven't a clue. Have a look:

Maybe it was a bad install job? The house I bought once had solar panels on it, but they were removed when the bad install job had allowed water in (so I guess it was cheaper to remove than set them up properly). I found this out when I asked about the water damage the inspector found prior to my purchase.

Maybe Carter hired cut-rate contractors, who then went 3x over their bid on their cost-plus contract. Cus you know, government.

You said it yourself - it's the private contractors who frequently over-charge and under-deliver. I think government would be more efficient if bad contractors weren't trying so hard to screw the customer (indirectly all of us).

We'd prod have said good bye to fossil fuels by now? Seriously? Sorry but the problem facing solar power is a matter of physics. To make solar a viable alternative to fossil fuels we would need what amounts to alien technology far advanced of our own. Solar's best chance of becoming a good primary source of power is placing solar power station in orbit and then beaming the power to receiving stations on the ground. They are actually working on this technology. A few years ago a group of researchers verified the viability of the power transmission technology. Solar panels will never be a serious option for powering anything more than lights and gadgets in the foreseeable future no matter how much money is thrown at it.

I disagree. The barrier to Solar was that the panels were just too expensive, they wouldn't generate enough power in their lifetime to pay for themselves. Now that the price of solar panels is collapsing and every other week we see another article about some cheaper solar panel that will someday maybe be on the market. Once the panels are cheap enough they'll pay for themselves and you'll be making money over the long term by installing them. In states where electricity is expensive (California and Hawaii for example) this is already the case, and you see a lot more solar uptake in those areas.

You'd be better off getting your community to chip in and buying one of those mini nuclear power plants once they are available. Far more cost effective and makes you more power independent.

I would also suggest getting some Unicorns for your petting zoo. Those mini nuke plant plans have a lot of serious real world issues that are going to keep them out of the hands of consumers for a long long time. You can buy solar panels today, and the price is rapidly approaching the point where it actually makes sense in the long term (I think they're already profitable if you claim the tax credit, but only after 10 years or so).

did you miss the part of "When they are available?" Seems you did. These little devices will come to market LONG before we see any real advances in solar technology which will move them from toy technology to serious power generation.

You seriously think that by the time the mini nuclear power stations are available (and safe) solar panels won't have progressed to a point where they pay for themselves in a couple of years?

Stop basing what you think you know about these small devices on movies.

OK. From your link, the company that wants to profit from selling you a small nuclear reactor says they're perfectly safe. Shocker. They also say you will need to hire a security detail to keep it secure. And of course they still generate nuclear waste.

Stop acting like this nuclear reactor is superior to solar panels in every way.

I priced Solar Panels just last year and they made no sense. They never would have even gotten close to paying for themselves. I get pretty much direct sunlight and I'm only a bit north of DC.

Are you sure you did the math right? Don't get pissed, it's not as easy as you think, and I *highly* recommend using a payback calculator.

Start with this, what is your *real* price per kWh? Take your bill, everything in, and divide by the number of kWh you burned in that period. If the number is 13 or higher, you're probably close to break-even on a DIY system.